Trouble logging in?We were forced to invalidate all account passwords. You will have to reset your password to login. If you have trouble resetting your password, please send us a message with as much helpful information as possible, such as your username and any email addresses you may have used to register. Whatever you do, please do not create a new account. That is not the right solution, and it is against our forum rules to own multiple accounts.

I joined this forum specifically to find help clarifying a scene from Takano Miyo's past. I don't want to give any spoilers so... don't continue reading this question if you have no idea what I'm saying?

Anyways I've read that Takano Miyo, as a young girl went to a horrible orphanage where the children there where abused. This is most definitely accurate and obvious if you read or watch the series, but something I keep reading from multiple sites is that:

- Miyo is given severe punishment for running away by having witnessed a man defecating into a toilet, then being forced to eat his excrement out of it while being sexually abused.

- However, when I read this scene in the manga(Matsuribayashi 4)she was presented with a dirty toilet that smelled and instructed to clean it orally. She did not witness anyone poop in it. And in the end she was shoved into the toilet, not sexually abused.

So I'm wondering, where these just rumors about the manga? Did people exaggerate how bad this scene was? Is this scene not in the manga but only in the game? Is there a different manga everyone is talking about? Did I miss something here?

From the scene mentioned above, I just got that she has severe PTSD. Then again, I haven't seen the VN version of the above scene.

My question is about a similar issue with Satako's breakdown in Tatagoroshi-hen. I've heard that there were similar things said about that scene as well (possibly implied). The VN and manga version of the breakdown are identical. Was it true false, or was the scene written so that there is interpretation for either answer?

About takano, I don't remember reading anything that implies she gets raped, orally cleaning the toilets qualifies as being forced to eat shit, tho.

About satoko, I think that is left in the air; while teppei does think at some point on tiem that satoko is too young to be raped, he also thinks it will be good to do it once she grows up, and while we don't know what's the age cut for teppei (one year older than when he tought so, 5 years ?), it's later said/shown that he has satoko naked around the house, iirc in the times when she uses her as a pet/table, I might need to reread the tips to get a better interpretation of those scenes.

IIRC the planned actions might be in a TIP from Minagoroshi-hen (seen on this site I believe).

The argument for the "worse scenario" from what I've seen amongst people that belive it mainly stem from three things: Keiichi being the one that touched Satako's head being the trigger of the breakdown (gender based trigger), some of Rena's actions, words, and explosive reaction towards Keiichi, and a combination of Teppai not being above raping people plus some of the more despicable acts of abuse.

Personally, I'm on the fence. I don't know if its actually true, but I can understand why people would have that kind of interpretation.

The "tips" are short sequences in the original sound novel, which are related to the main narration but do not actually belong to it. One can skip them and still follow the plotline, but sometimes they contain important pieces of information about what's really happening.

Definitely blown out of proportion,
it's been a while since I finished Kai but I'd certainly remember if anything of the kind happened.

I know this doesn't happen in Kai/the anime, but I was wondering if it happened in the manga specifically. I'm interested in collecting the whole manga series but didn't want to if it contained this particular scene.

Things been a bit quiet here. Perhaps someone can help me with a list by coming up with all the penalty games higurashi used baring hentei doshin. I do not think there has been a definitive list and curious to what there was.

Another question for debate: Just how compliant is Higurashi to the rules of "Fair Play" mystery? My posistion/theory :More compliant than its given credit for. Before I get flamed, let me point out that my viewpoint is that Higurashi is a hybrid horror/mystery series.

Knox's 1st: The culprit must be introduced early in the story. The main antagonist is introduced in Onikakushi-hen. The culprit of Watanagashi-hen was introduced early in episode 5 (anime). This law can actually be used to rule out

Spoiler for spoilers for 4th and 5th novel:

Onryu Sonozaki

as a red herring since the first introduction was in the 4th novel.

Knox's 2nd: Supernatural/preternatural entities are forbidden as a matter of course. This begs the question of how is Knox's 2nd supposed to be interpreted? Is it a flat out "No such entities are allowed to exist at all" or is the correct interpretation "Supernatural/preternatural entities/methods are forbidden from involvement (as culprit or accomplice) in the crime? If the later,

Spoiler for spoilers for 7th novel:

Hanyuu doesn't break it since she's basically innocent.

Either way, usage of Knox's 2nd can be used to rule out

Spoiler for general spoilers:

Oyashiro's Curse

as a red herring.

Knox's 3rd: No more than one secret passage (or was it no secret passages at all) are allowed. There is only one passage IIRC and its revealed in Watanagashi-hen. Does it have much impact on the how-dunnit aspect of the murders?

Knox's 4th: Unknown poisons and unusual scientific devices are forbidden. This is the big one. I don't think the wording IIRC specifically forbids

Spoiler for spoiler for 8th novel:

parasites

from being part of the solution. Personally, I had this solution figured out by episode 25 (I viewed the anime first). Probably my background that enabled to see this one coming. Due to shared circumstances of Keiichi, Rena, and Tomitake, I suspect that this solution was foreshadowed as early as Onikakushi-hen.

Knox's 7th: It is forbidden for the detective to be the culprit. Seems to be compliant on this one. Ooishi is innocent. Out of the first 6 novels, only the 4th novel has the detective as protagonist. In Watanagashi-hen, Rena is the closest to having the "Detective's Objectivity. even though she isn't the narrator.

Knox's 8th: The mystery cannot be solved with clues that were not presented. IIRC, the solutions in this series were properly foreshadowed (such as antagonist, the truth of Onikakushi-hen, true culprit of Watanagashi-hen). I heard there were issues with the investigation in Watanagashi-hen, but I think it seems to be a problem in the VN as the manga and anime adaptations show Rena's thought process in the kitchen (or at the very least shows that she thinks those things are suspicious). For me, the smoking gun in that novel was the "Very OOC out of nowhere Satoshi Psycho Rant"

Knox's 9th: 3rd parties are allowed to make observations.

Knox's 10th: Body doubles and identical twins are forbidden unless the viewer was duly prepared. The culprit in Watanagashi-hen was blatently shown early.

Another question for debate: Just how compliant is Higurashi to the rules of "Fair Play" mystery? My posistion/theory :More compliant than its given credit for.

Knox's 1st: The culprit must be introduced early in the story. The main antagonist is introduced in Onikakushi-hen. The culprit of Watanagashi-hen was introduced early in episode 5 (anime). This law can actually be used to rule out

Spoiler for spoilers for 4th and 5th novel:

Onryu Sonozaki

as a red herring since the first introduction was in the 4th novel.

But the Sonozaki family in general was proposed as a villain from the very first chapter. So I don't necessary think you can rule her out because while they didn't specifically show her it's quite clear there is a head for the Sonozaki family and they're shady.

Quote:

Originally Posted by magnum12

Knox's 4th: Unknown poisons and unusual scientific devices are forbidden. This is the big one. I don't think the wording IIRC specifically forbids

Spoiler for spoiler for 8th novel:

parasites

from being part of the solution. Personally, I had this solution figured out by episode 25 (I viewed the anime first). Probably my background that enabled to see this one coming. Due to shared circumstances of Keiichi, Rena, and Tomitake, I suspect that this solution was foreshadowed as early as Onikakushi-hen.

But the Sonozaki family in general was proposed as a villain from the very first chapter. So I don't necessary think you can rule her out because while they didn't specifically show her it's quite clear there is a head for the Sonozaki family and they're shady.

I do think this is against the spirit of the rule.

Good point on the top one though some of the stuff Akasaka says in the 4th novel (namely how vague the nature of Onryu's conversation makes it difficult to know if that was her opinion or well hidden orders) might have foreshadowed her as a red herring relatively early on in the novel. Personally when I watched episode 14, I had some pretty strong doubts regarding her being the culprit despite her being shady. That combined with Mion's reaction to Keiichi's request in episode 10 were what the basis on my thoughts that the "Sonozaki Conspiracy" might be a red herring.

I do see your point regarding Knox's 4th, but I think my disagreement with it is over a matter of interpretation. From a scientific perspective (barring a few minor issues), the solution is actually quite plausible. In its defense, it was thoroughly foreshadowed (which IIRC the take home message of Knox's 8th is about the solution having adequete foreshadowing via the clues). On a related note, I'm pretty sure the 1981 murder scenario is compliant with Knox's 4th.

Spoiler for spoilers for 8th novel:

Drugs that can kill their victims in a way that makes it look like a heart attack

IIRC were common in 1983. The culprit would be in a perfect posistion to know such a thing.

Second law is flat out broken.
It includes things from:
- No villains using a curse to kill in a locked room.
to
- No detectives using a crystal ball to see who did the crime.

Solving the crime because the character remembers from a previous life is right out.

Rule 4 is focused on "Keep things within the realm of the possible." To be able to use device, poison, or disease, such a thing should be real-world possible. (I'd consider _The Caves of Steel_ to be compliant here; while technology in the book was far ahead contemporary times, everything relevant was described in-story.)

Rule 8: As far as the disappearance of Rika & Satoko in Watanagashi-hen goes, I disagree. The results of Rena's investigations aren't disclosed until she gives her solution with the explanation. Even the flier mentioning the soy sauce (which Keiichi could have seen on his own) isn't mentioned until her solution.

Also, I view "clue" as much stronger than "foreshadowing". In Higurashi, I remember a lot of parts where a reader could say "Explanation B is also possible", but I don't remember much that could be shown "Explanation B is possible, and explanation A is wrong."